Europe’s Future

The terrorist who hijacked a truck in Berlin and ran over and killed 12 people, maiming and wounding 48 more, in that massacre in the Christmas market, has done more damage than he could imagine.

If the perpetrator is the jihadist from Tunisia who had no right to be in Germany, and had been under surveillance, the bell could begin to toll not only for Angela Merkel but for the European Union.

That German lassitude, and the naïveté behind it, allowed this outrage validates the grim verdict of geostrategist James Burnham in Suicide of the West: “Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide.”

Both the transnational elite and populist right sense the stakes involved here. As news of the barbarous atrocity spread across Europe, the reactions were instantaneous and predictable.

Marine Le Pen of France’s National Front, leading candidate for the presidency in 2017, declaimed: “How many more people must die at the hands of Islamic extremists before our governments close our porous borders and stop taking in thousands of illegal immigrants?”

Geert Wilders, the Party for Freedom frontrunner for prime minister of Holland, echoed Le Pen: “They hate and kill us. And nobody protects us. Our leaders betray us. We need a political revolution.

“These are Merkel’s dead,” tweeted Marcus Pretzell of the far-right Alternative for Germany about the victims in the Christmas mart.

Nigel Farage, who led the campaign for British secession from the EU, called the Christmas massacre “the Merkel legacy.”

Europe’s populist right is laying this act of Islamist savagery at the feet of Merkel for her having opened Germany in 2015 to a million migrants and refugees from Syria and the Middle East wars.

Before Berlin, she was already on the defensive after mobs of migrants went about molesting and raping German girls in Cologne last New Year’s Eve.

Even admirers who share her belief in a Europe of open borders, that welcomes immigrants and refugees from Third World wars and despotisms, sense the gravity of Merkel’s crisis.

“Germans should not let the attack on a Christmas market in Berlin undermine liberal values,” ran the headline on the Washington Post editorial December 22. Alarmed, the Post went on:

“What Germany cannot and must not do is … succumb to the siren song of the anti-foreigner right-wing, which has been gaining strength across Europe and moved immediately to exploit the attack ahead of the September 2017 national elections.”

The New York Times delivered its customary castigation of the European populist right but, in a note of near-desperation, if not of despair, implored Europe’s liberals not to lose faith:

“With each new attack, whether on a Christmas market or a mosque, the challenge to Europe to defend tolerance, inclusion, equality and reason grows more daunting. If Europe is to survive as a beacon of democratic hope in a world rent by violent divisions, it must not cede those values.”

But less and less does Europe appear to be listening.

Indeed, as Europe has been picking up its dead and wounded for over a decade, from terrorist attacks in Madrid, London, Paris, Berlin, and Brussels, the peoples of Europe seem less interested in hearing recitals of liberal values than in learning what their governments are going to do to keep the Islamist killers out and make them safe.

Salus populi suprema lex.

Liberals may admonish us that all races, creeds, cultures are equal, that anyone from any continent, country, or civilization can come to the West and assimilate. That discrimination against one group of immigrants in favor of another—preferring, say, Lebanese Christians to Syrian Muslims—is illiberal and undemocratic.

But people don’t believe that. Europe and America have moved beyond the verities of 20th-century liberalism.

The cruel experiences of the recent past, and common sense, dictate that open borders are Eurail passes for Islamist terrorists, who are anxious to come and kill us in the West. We have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.

In our time, there has taken place, is taking place, an Islamic awakening. Of 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide, hundreds of millions accept strict sharia law about how to deal with apostasy and infidels.

Scores of millions in the Middle East wish to drive the West out of their world. Thousands are willing to depart and come to Europe to terrorize our societies. They see themselves at war with us, as their ancestors were at war with the Christian world for 1,000 years.

Only liberal ideology calls for America and Europe to bring into their home countries endless numbers of migrants without being overly concerned about who they are, whence they come, or what they believe.

Right-wing and anti-immigrant parties are succeeding in Europe for a simple reason. Mainstream parties are failing in the first duty of government—to protect the safety and security of the people.

MORE IN WORLD

Hide 24 comments

24 Responses to Europe’s Future

“The terrorist who hijacked a truck in Berlin and ran over and killed 12 people, maiming and wounding 48 more, in that massacre in the Christmas market, has done more damage than he could imagine.”

Looks to me like he’s been wildly successful at moving the Germans toward a war against Muslims. Just what the extremists want.

The irony is that, in America, we have school children massacred, we have people shot down in Bible studies, and we don’t think there’s a thing we can do about it. But when a Muslim does it, all Muslims have to pay the price.

There are limits to multiculturalism. There are limits to how much cultural diversity true communities can bear. What do those writers for the Post and the NYT expect from the people of Europe? Reject the populist right wing they say. OK, and then what? Suck it up and take every murderous Islamic rampage like a man….or better yet, like a liberal which means putting your hands over your eyes and declaring “there is nothing to see here, move along”. This is insanity.

Another important column, Pat. However, “Alternative for Germany,” is not a “far-right” party, even though the establishment media try to characterize it as such. It is rather a center-right party and as of September has representation in 10 of the 16 German State Parliaments.

Regarding the recent terrorist attack in Berlin Alternative for Germany board member Alice Weidel said: “What we are currently experiencing in Germany is a double state failure. How can it still be possible for terrorists not only to enter Germany unimpeded but to live undisturbed in refugee homes? It is an administrative scandal that the Berlin terrorist Amri was not immediately deported and also fled from the deportation detention…As an Alternative for Germany, we have always pointed out that we must protect ourselves with all possible measures against uncontrolled immigration, as not only will the terrorism increase, but social systems will also collapse. We must be able to control who is coming to us, and to identify who does not belong here. Everything else leads directly into the chaos, as the Berlin attack makes clear. “

A couple of comments: the thousand years war between majority Muslims countries and majority Christian countries has always been about trade routes, territory, and/or resources. Of course there are religious overtones; religion is a major source of courage for the fighters. These current incidents of terrorism are not so much failures of immigration policies as failures of foreign policies. When Western countries attack and occupy Muslim countries, they cannot expect those attacks to be without reactive consequences. Muslim counties may not have bombers and missiles to project power but, as the author mentions, they have lots of people.

I suspect the monotheistic religions are so historically intertwined, with belief systems sown together by the same threads (if cosmetically of different colors) that the downfall of any one could hasten the demise of the others.

The socialist system under USSR tried to be a union. However, the Russians never succeeded to extinguish the nationalist streak within the USSR and without, in the countries in the Eastern Block.

A lot of the uprisings in the Eastern Europe, open (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland) or overt (Romania, Yugoslavia) were at core nationalistic and striving for independence, and only marginally had anti-socialist undertones.

Patrascanu, a Romanian communist leader was assassinated (fake trial, etc.) by Russians because he dared to say that he was first Romanian and then a communist. Castigating all these so called right wing leaders in Europe as bad by the “Liberal” media is going to turn the majority of Europeans against the EU. If EU declares its mission to establish a better life for Europeans, this is great. There is a lot of commonality between all European countries. The drug dealers, human traffickers, thieve rings, mafiosi of all nationalities get along. The Polish plumbers didn’t really disrupt economic and social life of England, the same way Romanian migrant workers were extremely easy to incorporate in the Italian, Spanish, and French societies as cheap labourers.

Things are different with the Middle Eastern immigrants. First, there is a lot of resentment in all these people. Their countries were ultimately wrecked by outside interventions, supported by EU, or not opposed. I can see how some young men would want to go to haven taking a lot of infidels with them.

EU should close its outside borders, strengthen its democratic processes, get out of the subservient status as a US protectorate, and establish pragmatic relations with Russia.

The US media should remember that one of the main messages of the incoming president was to build a wall and throw out illegal immigrants. And put a moratorium on accepting muslims… What is good for the goose should work for the gander as well, me thinks…

“..the thousand years war between majority Muslims countries and majority Christian countries has always been about trade routes, territory, and/or resources….”

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were sent by the new American republic to negotiate with the Barbary states in London to get them to stop piracy and enslavement of Americans.

The following is a quote from a letter Jefferson and Adams sent to John Jay telling him what happened:

“…We [Adams & Jefferson] took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their [Barbary states] pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

The mental insanity that rejects any difference between Christian teaching and, say, Islamic teaching and rather equates the two by lumping them together in the same bin is blind ignorance (at times masquerading as high brow thought).

I’m not sure the neoliberal globalists really fear Geert Wilders or Marie LaPen. What they really fear is Frauke Petry and the AfD. But as Kurt Gayle points out, their characterization of AfD as an extreme right party is ridiculous. What the rest of Europe really fears about them is that they would quit the EU and the Euro, which means no more bailouts. And then their imaginations run wild with a resurgent and independent Germany.

It’s past time for the US to restructure its immigration policy. Long overdue.

And it was the lack of enforcing our immigration procedures that largely contributed to the events pf 9/11. I remain where I was a week after the attacks. The US should have engaged a moratorium on all immigration for five years as it examines its policies on the matter.

I found the letters citation very interesting. Whether the Ambassador in question is acting as authority for all Muslim states is in question. As he makes it clear he can only speak for his own. But I will take it at face value. it ignores the long standing history of aggressive conflict between the west and the Muslim states since before the crusades. I would suggest that the issue is not as simple as it appears. I doubt that Muslims would view the US with any different status and history as the states from they are comprised – especially the christian covering.

Now one can only applaud the response to the Barbary pirates incidents. Protecting US goods services and citizens is a valid warrant for warfare. But bringing that matter to bear on the events of current history where the aggression has been largely by the western powers is a tad sloppy analysis. Even the first invasion of Kuwait posed no threat to the US – not even financial interests. The price of oil after Iraq invaded Kuwait changed not 1%. Because the effort in response to that invasion was international it had weight. But the subsequent military adventures since have not been to cause of threat to the US or her allies. Now the oil companies were irritated with Pres Hussein’s manipulation of oil prices. But that was and remains an internal matter for the Iraqis and OPEC. It is their oil.

No. The issues today are not for cause by Muslims seeking to convert enslave westerners. The only state that even comes close o such a posture was Iran with the return of the Ayatollah Khomeini. But that cal was not embraced by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and others. While I agree that the embrace of Muslims to violence for cause is important. It is also important to note that christians have engaged such behavior in complete violation of any mandate by Christ.

In light of current history, the aggressors are western states. If the issue was only piracy I think the letter and the comments reflecting that concern would be valid. But current history is not that simple. Our guilt in making the mess that is does not require that we import Muslims into the US to ameliorate the issue.

What Germany does is Germany’s business. The lesson of 230 years ago, does not explain the careless policies of today.

He means politically. We pretend mass shootings (American-style mass shootings as we call them in Europe) are inevitable rather than at least exacerbated by ready access to firearms designed only to kill many people (as opposed to those designed for hunting, pest control, shooting sports) and so after every one, our politicians offer their prayers, but no action.

Et tu, Pat? Even you use the MSM and PC Right modifier “far right” for the AfD? I’ve never seen any quoted remark by Frauke Petry or any other member that justifies this description of them as a political party; they seem eminently sensible to me.

As John Lukacs noted in his essay on “The Triumph and Disappearance of Liberalism” in his book, ‘Democracy and Populism – Fear and Hatred:’ Liberalism has triumphed and its appeal is disappearing.

The real irony is that Liberalism no longer has the will or ability to save itself and the people who still remain attached to it will be happy to see western civilization and culture disappear with it.

“If the issue was only piracy I think the letter and the comments reflecting that concern would be valid. But current history is not that simple.”

The ambassador from Tripoli was stating Islamic doctrine, not taking a position on piracy. You can read the various “tafsirs” (exegeses) of the Koran and commentaries by Muslim authorities through the centuries like al-Tabari, al-Ghazali and Maududi, and you will find the same sentiments expressed there. The justification for waging aggressive war on infidels for example comes from Koran 9:29, which commands Muslims to fight all others until they “give jizyah and feel themselves humbled.” Read the many justifications that the Islamic State has issued for their horrific treatment of the Yazidi and you will find statements similar to those made by the ambassador.

Whether every Muslim follows these principles or not is as irrelevant as whether every member of the Nazi party believed in genocide of Jews and Gypsies (Oskar Schindler obviously did not even though he was a member). Islam, like the Klan or the Nazi party, is at its heart a violent, supremacist doctrine, and it holds great danger for non-Muslims. It is time to stop obfuscating this by denying the obvious or by telling us happy anecdotes about that nice felafel seller from Fallujah who smiles at you every day.

if Europe and the West are going to commit °suicide°, this will not be because we will be overrun by Islamists. This will be instead an entirely self inflicted destiny, that is not to be blamed on our neighbors. The outcome of the christian-islamic conflict was settled 4 centuries ago and will not be reversed by few thousand terrorists in Europe or elsewhere. It was not that long ago that Europe’s ability to get rid of unwelcome minorities was proven beyond doubt. It is actually the Islamic civilization that is trying to find its footing in a modern world and doing a particularly bad job at it.

“The ambassador from Tripoli was stating Islamic doctrine, not taking a position on piracy.”

1. The statement is the position expressed by this particular ambassador. Trying to apply the matter to all Muslims misses the point of what is going on in the Muslim world today. And that is a reflection of what has been Muslim history — there is no central authority on doctrine.

2. I make it very clear what I find problematic concerning Islam in a democratic society such as ours. Namely the issue of violence and when it s justified. You are making hay where no hay exists. At no time do I dispute the problem of justified violence within Islam.

3. I acknowledge and am supportive of the US response to piracy by anyone.

4. My acknowledgement of the complexity of western eastern history is just that — acknowledges it. That means in my view there is a contextual meaning . . . of those relations.

5. Most importantly, in the context of today, our problems are largely to account of our poor decision making. And that includes the decisions made in response to 9/11. I cannot think of a single Islamic state that applauded the attacks of 9/11 nor in any manner condoned them openly. In other words those actors represented no clear Muslim sentiment.

The choices we are making today are not the result of Muslims engaged in piracy. The similarities then and now are more than a stretch.

“Whether every Muslim follows these principles or not is as irrelevant as whether every member of the Nazi party believed in genocide of Jews and Gypsies (Oskar Schindler obviously did not even though he was a member). Islam, like the Klan or the Nazi party, is at its heart a violent, supremacist doctrine, and it holds great danger for non-Muslims. It is time to stop obfuscating this by denying the obvious or by telling us happy anecdotes about that nice felafel seller from Fallujah who smiles at you every day.”

I am going to call this what it is — nonsense. It would be nice if any of the comparisons you make had any resonance one to the other.

First neither the Nazi party or the KKK engaged in an open debate about the meaning of what it meant to be either. Muslims are, in many ways we have stepped into a family debate that has been going on for hundreds or years.

Second, Both organizations are the Nazis and the KKK had central authorities. Muslims do not save the Qu’ran, which is why it is risky to take what any one Muslim cleric says and a position for the whole.

Third, Muslim exists in different states, and what has become clear is that not only are the differences of expressed Islamist faith expressed, the states do not agree with one another on all policy. That is abundantly important. Even the letter used to example, has the Ambassador from Tripoli stating, he speaks soley for his state.

There is no Islamic state as some independent actor. Nothing in comments dismisses the problematic nature of the Qu’ran’s view of justified violence. But what is clear by practice, that most Muslims do not subscribe to the use of violence to convert or justify every act of religious disagreement or polity.

Your analogies are incorrect as well as dangerous foundation for policy creation.

“Both organizations are the Nazis and the KKK had central authorities. Muslims do not save the Qu’ran, which is why it is risky to take what any one Muslim cleric says and a position for the whole.”

This alleged diversity within Islam is vastly exaggerated. This is a religion that still believes in killing apostates so the room for deviating from orthodoxy is very, very limited. While there are several schools of Islamic law (madhdhab), they agree on most points and disagree only on some minor issues.

For example, Hanafi law requires male apostates to be killed after 3 days of imprisonment and female apostates to be imprisoned and beaten every 3 days until their revert to Islam. The Maliki disagree with this vehemently, and require apostates to be given ten days to repent, after which both men and women are put to death. The Hanbali consider both these to be crazy ideas – for them, the waiting period is optional and they put apostates to death right away. That’s the gorgeous diversity in Islamic belief.

There are of course a few moderate and minor sects like the Ahmadiyya but they are not considered to be Muslims by mainstream Muslims – in Pakistan, they can be imprisoned for 3 years for calling themselves Muslims.

Do you know any Islamic madhdhab that says “Even in an Islamic state, Hindus and Muslims should be equal under the law, Hindus should be free to practice their religion, and Muslims should be as free to convert to Hinduism as Hindus are to convert to Islam”? Replace Hindu with Christian or any other religion you like.

I’ll take your “diversity in Islam” nonsense seriously when you find one mainstream Sunni or Shia maddhdab that advocates this.